God Inhibits the Sciences

While there exists a relatively popular debate with respect to religion and its ethics impacting the use or research of some scientific ideas, there is something deeper that needs to be discussed that goes directly to the depths of both theology and the scientific method. In short, certain definitions of God (especially the Christian conception) can not allow science and its method to have any meaning. This creates a problem wherein many theistic individual do no know they are at odds with the scientific method, yet practice it anyway -- living a spiritually contradicting life.

I do not make these statements with shallow accusations; my proof follows:

(assumptions)
God exists.
God is omnipotent.

1. For any scientific enquiry, there must be a valid scientific experiment, as needed by the scientific method.

2. For any valid scientific experiment, there must be a control set, and a variable set. In the perfect situation, the control set is a set where the conditions are not changed so that the variable set can be compared to it. The control set, in the medical world, is usually the group of people who get the placebo.

3. Since God is omnipotent, humans have no control over God. Therefore:

4. Given any valid scientific experiment, it is possible for God to do something that would impact the control set in such a way that it renders the experiment useless.

5. Since God is all powerful, it can also possible do this action in such a way that humans do not know if God intervened. Therefore:

6. Given any control group, there is no way to determine if God impacted the result of the experiment. By implication, any given experiment can not be said with any certainty to be valid.

7. Thus, (from 1), since there is no certainty of any valid experiment, no scientific enquiry can be conducted.

Hence, if God exists and is omnipotent, then God renders science useless.

QED

He would, according to your proof, render the scientific method incapable of proving His existance. That happens all the time, though. Just a fun experiment for you: apply the scientific method to evolutionary theory.

Besides, just because humans don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For a while, the bumble bee shouldn't fly according to the current concepts of aerodynamics. Yet it did. It wasn't decided that, since we couldn't understand it or fit an explanation into current scientific concepts that the bumble bee simply couldn't exist and therefore every one we see is just a figment of our imagination.

Not exactly. According to my proof, if God exists, then the scientific method is incapable of proving anything.

Originally posted by radardog
Not exactly. According to my proof, if God exists, then the scientific method is incapable of proving anything.

Not really. If god created a universe with a certain set of laws, it does not mean those laws apply to god. In the same way when we write software for a computer character. It does not mean the laws apply to us.

But you are also assuming that if God exists, He would wish to foil our scientific method, which is not necessarily true

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Not really. If god created a universe with a certain set of laws, it does not mean those laws apply to god. In the same way when we write software for a computer character. It does not mean the laws apply to us.

How exactly does this apply to my proof? If God is outside the laws of logic, fine, that still does not invalidate ANY of my premises.

If logic is not the correct way too discover truth, then the scientific method is not able to prove anything anyway! My conclusion still holds.

babloyi,

Re-read my assumptions; I never assumed such a thing. In fact, I said that it is possible that God could, not will. In the reality of the possibility of God foiling our scientific method, then we can not say with any certainty that our experiment was without his input. We simply do not know! Our lack of knowledge is important, as this suggests any enquiry we do is meaningless, since we need that knowledge.

How exactly does this apply to my proof? If God is outside the laws of logic, fine, that still does not invalidate ANY of my premises.

No, your premise is correct. God does indeed invalidate the methology of science. However, that does not necessarily mean god invalidates logic. Further, this proof is incomplete, because science itself is incomplete and has not accounted for all the variables of nature.

Now, if we assume the hypothetical, that science has accounted for every variable and discovers the universe is in perfect order and all events are in synchronicity and there is a human soul. Does that prove God exists?

I'm not sure how that makes the proof incomplete, and no, I don't think even with the conditions you have given would that necessarily prove God's existence (or rather, it doesn't follow from those assumptions).

My favorite proof for God isn't one from science or soul, but rather thought: the ontological proof is the most interesting, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Now, if we assume the hypothetical, that science has accounted for every variable and discovers the universe is in perfect order and all events are in synchronicity and there is a human soul. Does that prove God exists?

If that is your definition of God, then sure. To me? Does it matter what I call it? It sure looks purty.

I believe your logic is faulty.

1. Whether God is omnipotent or not is theoretical and not a proven fact. Since your whole argument is based on this assumption, if this is wrong the you are building a house of cards � it falls easily.
2. However, if God is omnipotent that does not dicate that he/she chooses to interact or interfere with human existence. It is possible that God is omnipotent yet purposely has no interaction with us. If this is the case, your house still falls.
3. Further, any scientific experiment is bound by the laws of math, nature and physics. I believe God created those laws. If God does interact with us then his interaction is a part of those laws. For example, a meteorologist generally understand how storms develop. If God chooses to whip up a storm it is still a storm none the less and the meteorologist is able to see it form. How would you know whether God sent the storm or not and why would it even matter?
4. More importantly � if God did create the universe then he also created the laws of science, math and nature then science is actually a method of discovering God. We are only beginning to understand the physical properties of the universe thus we are only beginning to understand God. According to Merriam-Websters science is:
a. 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5. Since science is simply a system for study and learning then there is no way God renders it useless. If our system isn�t working then it is simply that we have not yet discovered the proper method. If God does intervene in human existence then the proper method must take this into account. Thus the problem is only our limited knowledge and understanding, not that science itself is invalid.


As a final note, it is presumptuous and disrespectful to lump all theological beliefs together. To assume that all theological views are similar to Christain views is ignorant. If you really want to understand how science and theology can and do work together harmoiously look into "Deism". This whole concept is the basis of this theological view - which by the way is the one I hold to.

Originally posted by radardog
I'm not sure how that makes the proof incomplete, and no, I don't think even with the conditions you have given would that necessarily prove God's existence (or rather, it doesn't follow from those assumptions).

Well, it is incomplete, because your base is science, which itself is complete.
Yes, I know, the conditions I gave still do not prove god. This is because science can only measure the observable universe, and the observable universe is the effects of the cause. God will always be the unobservable universe, because, he is the first cause and the causality.

So it is impossible for god to be proven through science. In the same way it is impossible to prove that a UFO is extraterrestrial. So, we have to make a logical assumption.

So what logical assumption do we make if consciouosness has always been and there has always been perfection. Does that not mean the universe is conscious? Is that god?

My favorite proof for God isn't one from science or soul, but rather thought: the ontological proof is the most interesting, in my opinion.

Yes, it my favourite too. I call it "AUM" or "I am"

Originally posted by badkitty
I believe your logic is faulty.

1. Whether God is omnipotent or not is theoretical and not a proven fact. Since your whole argument is based on this assumption, if this is wrong the you are building a house of cards � it falls easily.

True, but it necessarily includes most major religions that use this knowledge in terms of faith.

2. However, if God is omnipotent that does not dicate that he/she chooses to interact or interfere with human existence. It is possible that God is omnipotent yet purposely has no interaction with us. If this is the case, your house still falls.

Actually, my proof still holds: As I said before, my proof includes this possibility (God not acting), in that it isn't that God acts or not that is the problem, but rather our lack of knowledge thereof.

3. Further, any scientific experiment is bound by the laws of math, nature and physics. I believe God created those laws. If God does interact with us then his interaction is a part of those laws. For example, a meteorologist generally understand how storms develop. If God chooses to whip up a storm it is still a storm none the less and the meteorologist is able to see it form. How would you know whether God sent the storm or not and why would it even matter?

Exactly the problem I noted in your number 2: We don't know, and that is where we lose certainty in experiments.

4. More importantly � if God did create the universe then he also created the laws of science, math and nature then science is actually a method of discovering God. We are only beginning to understand the physical properties of the universe thus we are only beginning to understand God. According to Merriam-Websters science is:

Oh please, don't go to a general dictionary for definitions of specific terms in the fields they are used in. We are talking about academic science, and therefore the field of the philosophy of science. Science, at its back bone, uses the "Scientific method" ala Descartes and Bacon. The scientific method is pretty well know, and you can easily google it as well as "control groups" in experimentation.

As a final note, it is presumptuous and disrespectful to lump all theological beliefs together. To assume that all theological views are similar to Christain views is ignorant. If you really want to understand how science and theology can and do work together harmoiously look into "Deism". This whole concept is the basis of this theological view - which by the way is the one I hold to.

I didn't lump any groups together, it's just well known that many religions out there state: 1. God exists. and 2. God is omnipotent. As a result, then yes, this necessarily lumps a lot of people together.

Any other attempted rebuttals I can put away?

Originally posted by radardog
7. Thus, (from 1), since there is no certainty of any valid experiment, no scientific enquiry can be conducted.

Hence, if God exists and is omnipotent, then God renders science useless.

QED

I don't think it follows because just because the experiments don't have certainty doesn't mean that they aren't valid. They still work, and the results are still repeatable and the technology that arises from them is still applicable. In fact, philosophers of science have for a while now recognized that there is no certainty in science, even without the issue of divine interference.

Fadardog, I'm not going to go and prove logically whether or not the Creator exists.
But, I do think your topic is flawed.
Instead of God inhibits the sciences it should read Some religions inhibit the sciences
Throughtout history, haven't great minds skirted religion, notably the Catholic Church? It's not the Creator the scientists had issues with so much as was the perception of God created by religion.

Any other attempted rebuttals I can put away?

Why, yes. I find this quite envigorating.

True, but it necessarily includes most major religions that use this knowledge in terms of faith.

Call it "assumption" in stead of knowledge and we're on the same page.

As I said before, my proof includes this possibility (God not acting), in that it isn't that God acts or not that is the problem, but rather our lack of knowledge thereof.

Gods acting or not is merely one of the variables that we must identify. As with all expreimentation and prooving we must start with assumptions (as you have here). One of those assumptions then must be God does or doesn't intervene. And if God does intervene on a regular basis then his intervention is part of the natural process and thus is already accounted for in our scientific approach.

We don't know, and that is where we lose certainty in experiments.

See my last response - all expreiments begin with uncertainties and variables. This is merely one of them yet to be proven or disproven.

Oh please, don't go to a general dictionary for definitions of specific terms in the fields they are used in.

Does it really matter where this definition came from? It is accurate and I think we both agree that the purpose of science is to discover truth and prove facts through specific methods.

The most important point - no scietific experiment / discovery begins from a bisis of completely knowledge. In fact, it is the persuit of knowledge that spurred the development of the scientific method. All persuit of knowledge begins with a lack of knowledge and numerous uncertanties and variables. Your question as to whether or not God intervenes is merely one of those variables or uncertainties and should be the subject of scientific study not the destruction of it.

FYI - Most of us would agree that Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientific minds right? Well here's what he had to say about God:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

I don't think he let his belief in God halt his scientific research.

Sorry to be clogging up this thread but as I continue to ponder this I realize I don't really want to debate your theory as we are both basing our conclusions on different assumptions that neither of us have proven. It seems the point of your dissertation is that God and science cannot coexist because one will negate the other.

However, I would like to share with you my basic belief in God and science. Thomas Payne summed it up fairly well:

"It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human
invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every
science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and
unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and
governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them. Man cannot invent a thing that is eternal and immutable;
and the scientific principles he employs for this purpose must be, and
are of necessity, as eternal and immutable as the laws by which the
heavenly bodies move, or they could not be used as they are to
ascertain the time when, and the manner how, an eclipse will take
place. Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a
knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to
things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely
distant from him as all the heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask,
could he gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?
It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge
to man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every
principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded.
"

"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.
Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding
anything."

I agree with this completely. I believe that science is merely the discovery of God and his principles thus science cannot exist without God.

Science is a latin word
it means
Knowledge

God and Science go togeather

RELIGION is the bad guy here
Religion is bad! lol

God doesnt intervene because God isnt a person
personalizing god is a mistake that most western peoples make

Read the book

The Tao of Physics

also i disagree with most of your assumptions about God vs Science
i think your just trying to start a fight with pro-science people like myself....
just my opinion

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Fadardog, I'm not going to go and prove logically whether or not the Creator exists.
But, I do think your topic is flawed.
Instead of God inhibits the sciences it should read Some religions inhibit the sciences
Throughtout history, haven't great minds skirted religion, notably the Catholic Church?

The church famously forced gallileo to say he was wrong. The church also maintained lots of the ancient knowledge thru the dark ages, and based its understandings of science on those. Thats why it didn't back a biblical interpretation for teh solar system, but the Ptolomaic one. And of course the current pope is extremely interested in science. He convenes meetings of scientific minds from multiple fields often, one meeting is held once a year, and the pope even has an observatory attached to his papal apartment. Some would argue its a hundred or so years too late, but then again other religionshaven't even gotten that far.

Have you tried testing your hypothesis?

Just because you believe there is logical disproof... without experimentation, you have nothing "real" to help you decide either way.